From what the reader of this statement has seen so far, it's quite clear that this site is anti-feminist. But what is "anti-feminist"? Or at least, what does MACHO International mean by the word? A popular saying about feminism is that "There are as many definitions of feminism as there are feminists" Likewise, we believe, there are as many definitions of anti-feminism as there are anti-feminists. In order to avoid being misconstrued, a clarification of the term anti-feminism as it is defined by MACHO International is definitely in order. This is important, so that we do not end up tarring those who have true feminist beliefs with the same brush as those who don't.

MACHO International is against the modern 'Politically Correct' misandrist feminist movement that is prevalent in the Western world. The feminism that is dedicated to an ideology rather than the women it claims to represent. The feminism that promotes falsehoods to protect that ideology. The feminism that seems to think that women who do not toe the party line are not worthy of their support. The feminism that has forgotten the concept of equal rights 'and' responsibilities. The feminism that is quick to condemn wrong doing by men but is loathe to do the same when done by women. This is perhaps the perfect description of the feminism espoused by the National Organization for Women and the Ms. Foundation in the United States. Likewise the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the Women's Advisory Council in Canada and Australia respectively.

MACHO International is for equal rights and responsibilities for both men and women and is completely dedicated to the promotion of that ideal. So far, the term 'equal rights' has exclusively been defined by these 'feminists'. With the support of the 'Politically Correct' movement with its emphasis on group rights and group offences which conveniently gives 'victims' adequate reasons to attack their 'oppressors' without letting the so called oppressors defend themselves, these 'feminists' shrilly maintain that their definition of equality is the only valid one while simultaneously spreading their androphobic beliefs without the inconvenience of their claims being subjected to scrutiny, in spite of the fact that today's argument may be inconsistent with tomorrow's. Despite the fact that their definition of feminism has the least support and the most opposition among women, they are the most militant and vocal, therefore the most recognized. They run the Domestic Violence Programs, make up a large percentage of national women's organizations called on by governments to represent women's concerns and run the Women's Studies departments in Universities. And since they are the most commonly accepted representatives of feminism, such an obviously good and progressive social movement, it is not possible to attack their views without being accused of being against women's rights, whether you be male or female, even if you are well known within the movement. This has frighteningly put them in the very powerful position of being able to dictate their agendas without allowing the opposition to present their views. If indeed opposition dared speak out, they are vilified by these 'feminists', who because they exist in the name of women's rights can claim a higher moral ground.

However, the raison d'�tre of MACHO International is not anti-feminism or Political Incorrectness. As illustrated above, and perhaps even better here, men's reputation has suffered a massive blow. The image of the heterosexual male in particular as a battering, sexually abusive and insensitive clod has reached dizzying heights in popularity. Heterosexual male bashing, either in jest or in all seriousness has become as endemic to Western culture as racist epithets in the early Twentieth Century. Such popular misconceptions, stereotypes, lies and distortions about men, constantly promoted through the media, has done a lot of damage to men's lives and sense of self worth, not to mention sense of identity. One notices that any promotion of such similar negative images about women or gay men is publicly denounced or protested. The same is not true for straight men. Constantly told that there is something 'wrong' with them, culturally emasculated by the constant bombardment of contradictions of what they are and what they are supposed to be, many heterosexual men struggle to change to become more acceptable, less of what they are and more of what the new Politically Correct society demands them to be. Despite this, MACHO International does not believe the male to be a 'victim' whose fights and rights must be taken up and protected by others. MACHO International's primary objective is to finally begin the work of restoring the damaged reputation of the straight male and bringing his nobility back into public consciousness.

To be sure, these past thirty years have definitely been the most tumultuous in the gender landscape for perhaps, millenia. Women's torrential infusion into the public domain in the 1960s and their new found economic independence led to a revolutionary, in every sense of the word, redefinition of femininity, womanhood and women's expectations. The gender environment has changed and is constantly changing, perhaps irrevocably, but no doubt, drastically. Considering the symbiotic nature of the relationship between men and women, it was inevitable that maleness, masculinity and men's expectations would need to undergo some major adaptations to fit the new world. It was time for change.

However, the job of redefining masculinity and all it should stand for has not been taken up, largely because the podium of gender issues has for the past thirty years been occupied by women and those who claim to speak for them. Because of this, many men, particularly those who grew up during the past three or four decades, and those coming of age now, have little or no concept of what being a man is all about. This was not women's fault. Despite the erroneous yet currently popular belief that heterosexual men's interests are diametrically opposed to that of women and homosexuals, heterosexual men could have still spoken, demanded their space and that their voices be heard in the gender debate. One cannot help noticing that the heterosexual male voice on gender issues does not exist, or is at least silent. This is not the same as saying the heterosexual male has not had any scions speaking on the gender landscape. But the overwhelming majority of these voices did not speak 'for' straight men as other representative voices spoke 'for' women and homosexual men, etc. from their collective and respective points of view. With the exceptions of mythopoetics like John Bly, and others like Jack Kammer and Warren Farrell, most have spoken 'about' straight men from the view point of other members of the public, often the popular misandristic perspective of Politically Correct circles. Guilt and self-hatred ridden works like John Stolenberg's "Refusing To Be A Man" and Ashley Montagu's aforementioned "The Natural Superiority Of Women" illustrate the usual message carried by such voices

The 1960s saw the change in the ideals that defined womanhood and femininity, which demanded a change in the ideals that defined maleness and masculinity. And as the traditional ideals that defined maleness declined, so did the image of men begin to lose its once clear cut definition in the public eye. These new ideals, by their very nature, had to be defined by men, and not by anyone else. Regrettably, nothing has come to replace those ideals, at least ideals which have gained as much acceptance among men as feminist ideals among women. In particular, heterosexual men. Homosexual men have been defining and continue to define their own set of ideals. By comparison, heterosexual men have not even begun.

This is not to say that attempts have not been made to develop a model of maleness that men could feel comfortable with aspiring to, as much women felt comfortable with aspiring to the original feminist model of the confident assertive woman who could choose to be anything from a corporate raider to a full-time mother, and be justifiably proud of her choice.

One model, developed by 'feminists' in the 1960s and 1970s was the "New Man". Passive, averse to conflict of any sort and androgynous when it came to his dealings with women. New Man's philosophy can be almost a 100% defined/illustrated by this statement by a man named Bob Pease, a member of a Canadian pro-'feminist' men's group called XY, "I believe that the most progressive strategy open to heterosexual men is to destabilize rather than essentialise our identities as heterosexual men. It means constructing new masculine subjectivities that loosen men's connections to heterosexual dominance and hegemonic masculinity." The New Man is the one who has bought into the Politically Correct view of maleness and masculinity and is appropriately sorry for the crimes that men have committed against the world. New Men exclusively make up the membership of male 'feminist' men's organizations like Real Men, Men Against Sexual Assault, the White Ribbon Campaign, Men for Change, Men Against Pornography, etc. For many of these New Men, their life long mission is develop their 'feminine' sides while constantly discarding their 'masculine' sides which prevent them from being sensitive, caring, non-violent and just individuals. For the 'crimes' committed by men against women, children, homosexuals, animals and the environment, and if they are white, other races, they are eternally apologetic and looking for ways to make up for it despite their knowledge that they would never fully atone for men's 'sins'. But they do try, by doing what they're told to do by 'feminists'. Just like it is said on the manifesto of Real Men, 'they read 'women's literature'', magazines like Ms., try their best to do 'what women would like to see men doing', and attend and support as many 'feminist' functions and causes as they can, all the while trying to be and look as 'caring' as possible. Included among what they are told to consider 'women's literature' are books by Andrea Dworkin, Susan Griffin, Carol Gilligan, Sheila Jeffrys, Gloria Steinem, Catherine MacKinnon, Patricia Ireland, Susan Faludi, etc and specifically excluded are books like "Sexual Personae", "Who Stole Feminism", "Professing Feminism", "The New Victorians", etc. Books by New Men are typically of the nature of "Refusing To Be A Man" and the "The Natural Superiority Of Women".

In their relationships with women they try their best to not be 'like men' and take on an androgynous identity. Constantly terrified of overstepping their bounds they usually defer to their partners' decisions and dictates, afraid of being 'controlling' and sexist in case they disagree and 'abusive' if they insist on doing things their way i.e. displaying "heterosexual dominance and hegemonic masculinity". The most common word used to describe New Men by men and ironically by women, is "pathetic". This is evidenced most strongly by the New Man's remarkable romantic failures among ordinary women and even more ironically, 'feminists'. A reportedly common complaint among New Men is the lack of attention paid to them by the opposite sex. The writer here, despite being officially counted as a 'victim' by the Politically Correct, being non-white and non-Christian, can see why.

The more recent model is the one put forward by the American originated mythopoetic men's movement, largely inspired by the ideas of John Bly, author of the book "Iron John". A man who is in touch with his feelings and who proudly recognizes and celebrates his masculinity. MACHO International has a boundless respect for the mythopoetic men's movement for its ground breaking new definition of masculinity as a part of themselves men should be proud of. However, the ideal they promote is one that not many men are comfortable with. Their emphasis on such things as men's emotional support groups, men's ritual healing groups and some other, perhaps best described as New Age, ideals and practices, all part of the "exploration of the male spirit, soul and shadow" do not do much to attract most men into adopting this new model as one to aspire to. The majority of men do not identify with calls to share more of their 'emotional selves' with women and other men. And the Native American Tradition based practices i.e. 'talking sticks', drumming and sweat lodges, probably the root cause of the public images of them running out into the woods, hugging trees, each other and beating drums so promoted by the media, which does nothing to help, seems to alienate these men further from the average man on the street. The mythopoetic image of men is worth considering once one overcomes the influence of the stereotypes commonly held about them. They provide a viable and proud new definition of masculinity that, perhaps, most importantly is another choice of ideal that heterosexual men can aspire to, adding another option to the pitifully small list.

Surprisingly though, the more popular model of masculinity seems to be, for lack of a better descriptive, 'Old Man'. The most prominent promoter of this ideal are the conservative evangelical Promise Keepers. Urging men to embrace sensitivity, responsibility and to be more nurturing, another part of their philosophy, the most controversial part, is that men should be the 'leaders' in the domestic and public sphere. While for the most part, their philosophy is laudable, their position on leadership, to say the least, is not acceptable to many women and men. Especially 'feminists'. As a result, they tend to downplay that part of their philosophy, which has more to do with paternalism towards women rather than dominance. Curiously though, the bulk of evidence seems to show that the women in the lives of Promise Keepers have become immeasurably happier ever since their men accepted this model of masculinity as theirs. However, 'feminist' organizations are virulently opposed to this relatively new movement, on the surface particularly because of the Promise Keepers' 'leadership clause'. One notices however, that the National Organization for Women's charges against the Promise Keepers' seem to border on paranoia. Their insinuations of elaborate schemes and hidden agendas that bring up images of women uneducated, barefoot, pregnant and chained to stoves are often too ludicrous to be believed. For the major part, MACHO International has a lot of respect for the Promise Keeper philosophy. Their emphasis on responsibility, loyalty and spirituality is admirable. However, MACHO International's philosophy (if one can be said to exist) diverges from theirs at the point where they claim that "the ultimate responsibility for the world�for men's and women's lives both�is men's" and their above stated belief that men are responsible for all societal ills. Indeed, this denies women any sort of moral responsibility and is perhaps the guiding principle behind their belief that men should lead, because it follows that responsibilities go with rights. If men are to have more responsibility, then indeed men should have more power. MACHO International disagrees with this, as our aforementioned dedication to equal rights unequivocally indicates. Equality means equal rights, equal responsibilities; equal power, equal blame.

MACHO International would like to offer another definition/model of heterosexual masculinity, one designed to withstand the passage of time. A heterosexual man who is unapologetic and proud of his masculinity, on the understanding that being 'masculine' is part and parcel of himself. Thus the name MACHO. And that within his masculinity, he can be complete.

In the chapter, "What I Love Most About Men" in his book, "Why Men Are The Way They Are", Warren Farrell puts forward what we believe to be the qualities that are part and parcel of the true nature of masculinity, the masculinity that is present in the overwhelming majority of men; generosity, fairness, independence, nurturance, fathering through coaching, leadership, outrageousness, keeping his emotions under control, ego strength, ability to separate issues from friendship, expression of anger, keeping complaints about relationships in the relationship, readiness to save her life while risking his own, giving up his life to support his beliefs and/or family, introspection in sorting out values, self-sufficiency, self-starting, risk-taking, challenging authority, inventing, developing identity, humility, responsibility, sense of efficacy, doing rather than complaining, pushing the limits of his and others' talents, creativity and problem solving, sense of humor, resourcefulness, the ability to play with children on their terms, and changing without blame.

In short, MACHO International's beliefs can be just as accurately illustrated in this column by Marylaine Block.

Within a man's masculinity lies the eternal and immeasurable capacity to be benevolent, courageous, decisive and as aggressive and competitive as the situation demands. In his masculinity he can be passionate, warm, and compassionate. His masculinity makes him capable of protecting and grieving, enthusiasm, vision and loyalty and accepting responsibility. It allows him to appreciate beauty, experience joy and wonder and to be a good father. Most of all, it allows him the freedom to choose what his masculinity means to him and the freedom to define it for himself.

But more importantly, the promotion of this new set of ideals comes secondary to MACHO International's major objective. MACHO International intends to show in a blatantly androcentric way the lifestyle and viewpoint of the straight man, in all its variations and uniqueness, in everything from relationships to politics. MACHO International would also try its best to aggressively counter negative portrayals of men in the popular culture, the distortion of facts to further demonize and attack the heterosexual male by calling up on those promoting such misandrist views and presenting alternative positive portrayals of the heterosexual male. MACHO International intends to publish the truth of such matters as joint custody, the results of the increase in single motherhood, domestic violence, rape, the importance of marriage, etc. Pro-gender equality, pro-family, pro-heterosexual (which, contrary to popular belief does not necessarily mean anti-homosexual), pro-fatherhood, in fact, quite simply, pro-male, secular and non-puritanical. We also hope we'll be able to expand off the net and fully into the public domain.

MACHO International acknowledges that this is quite a tall task. And we're not averse to saying we need help. A lot of help. The continued existence and growth of MACHO International is almost completely dependent on the contributions, whether they be observations, views, thoughts or criticisms, of the individual members our chosen constituency, those who believe in what we stand for. And to a somewhat lesser extent the contributions of those from without it. We're few and it will be presumptuous of us to attempt to speak for all straight men, as evidenced by the tiny number of countries we intend to cover, individually. One notices that they're all, to some extent, English speaking countries. This is because, all our members, except for the writer, speak only English. The writer knows two other languages. But they are both West African. It is one of our hopes that we'll soon be able to go beyond the language barrier.

Thank you very much for your time. Please explore our site and see where we need your help. And perhaps you too would join the MACHO International family.